- (1.) CHALLENGING order dated 27.08.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on the post of Probationary Officer on 18.07.2007 and on completion of two years of probation period, he was posted as Relationship Manager Personal Banking (RMPB) at State Bank of India, Ashok Nagar Branch, Ranchi on 09.11.2009. The petitioner was transferred on 27.04.2012 to SME RIE, Kokar Branch as Relationship Manager Small Enterprises (RMSE). By order dated 29.09.2012, the petitioner was promoted in the rank of Middle Management, Grade ScaleII (MMGSII) and by order dated 23.02.2013, the petitioner has been transferred to Daltonganj Branch of the respondent Bank. The wife of the petitioner is also employed with the respondent Bank and she is currently posted at Ranchi. The petitioner made representation to the respondents for not transferring him out of Ranchi taking a plea that he is physically handicapped and since his wife is also posted at Ranchi, he may be retained at Ranchi. The petitioner was transferred by order dated 23.02.2013. The petitioner approached this Court challenging order dated 23.02.2013 in W.P. (S) No. 2892 of 2013 and the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 22.07.2013 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate reasoned order. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 has been passed.
(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed stating that in view of Office Memorandum dated 10.05.1990, the plea taken by the petitioner was not accepted. It is further stated that with respect to the posting of the wife of the petitioner an appropriate decision would be taken only after she resumes her duty. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 is contrary to the Circular dated 25.04.2000 of the Bank and the ground taken in the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 that a handicapped person would not have a right for preference in posting, is contrary to the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 13.03.2002. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the respondent Bank is bound by its own Circular and since the specific order passed by this Court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit, the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 is liable to be interfered with.;